The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: SR388 on September 06, 2007, 08:00:41 PM
-
You cannot disprove the round earth "theory" by small scale tests. its impossible. pouring sand on a beach ball and watching the sand roll off does not equate to people on the earth.
Heres a main flaw with small scale tests such as that, and it is a flaw that exists with both RE and FE theories:
The acceleration 9.8 m/s2 is commonly referred to as "G" or "gravity". this force exists, there is no denying that. if you pick up a book and let go of it, the book does not float in the air. this force is greater than the "gravity" that may or may not exist between two masses that we can relate to. if you pour sand on a beach ball, the sand is being pulled more by "G" than the gravitational force that may or may not exist between the ball and the sand particles. thus, the particles will always slide off of the beach ball.
Since we cannot escape this "G" force, as it is everywhere, we cannot subtract it from any equation in a small scale experiment. and even a larger scale experiment would still be acted upon by "G", and still affect the results.
The logically way a RE'er would escape this force would be to launch into space, where "G" is much much less prevalent. But this solution cannot exist in FE theory, thus, all small scale tests to disprove RE theory in a FE world are invalid.
-
Then the large-scale tests Dr Rowbotham performed that proved a flat earth are still valid. Whew!
-
Then the large-scale tests Dr Rowbotham performed that proved a flat earth are still valid. Whew!
do you mean the bedford level experiment? the one that later only reinforced the RE theory?
cause for the life of me i cant find any of Dr. Rowbotham's other experiments.
so please, enlighten me.
-
That's right, the Bedford Level experiment. That proved a flat earth. Good job googling!
-
That's right, the Bedford Level experiment. That proved a flat earth. Good job googling!
WTF? i may only be getting my info from wikipedia, but it says right on the entry:
The Bedford Level Experiment was a series of observations carried out along a six-mile length of the Bedford Level (the Old Bedford River), Norfolk, England, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was an attempt to demonstrate that the Earth was flat. Early results seemed to prove this contention, but most later attempts to reproduce the observations firmly supported the conventional view that the earth is a sphere.
i can still read right? it says that it supports the conventional view that the earth is a sphere
-
Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.
-
Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.
can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?
-
As you will see from some of the people here, the only time that any FE theory is correct is when it is viewed locally, they will then apply that to everything you can think of just to make sure they are always correct.
-
www.populationpaste.com
-
Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.
can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?
Christine Garwood's book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" provides historical data showing that the post-Rowbotham experiment mentioned in Wikipedia actually demonstrated a Flat Earth. Flat Earth proponent John Hampden won the wager when the referee William Carpenter declared that experimental results showed a Flat Earth.
There were a few objections to the referee's decision, however, which is why there is still some dispute today.
-
Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.
can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?
Christine Garwood's book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" shows that the post-Rowbotham experiment mentioned in Wikipedia actually demonstrated a Flat Earth. Flat Earth proponent John Hampden won the wager when the referee William Carpenter declared that experimental results showed a Flat Earth.
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
-
You cannot disprove the round earth "theory" by small scale tests. its impossible. pouring sand on a beach ball and watching the sand roll off does not equate to people on the earth.
Heres a main flaw with small scale tests such as that, and it is a flaw that exists with both RE and FE theories:
The acceleration 9.8 m/s2 is commonly referred to as "G" or "gravity". this force exists, there is no denying that. if you pick up a book and let go of it, the book does not float in the air. this force is greater than the "gravity" that may or may not exist between two masses that we can relate to. if you pour sand on a beach ball, the sand is being pulled more by "G" than the gravitational force that may or may not exist between the ball and the sand particles. thus, the particles will always slide off of the beach ball.
Since we cannot escape this "G" force, as it is everywhere, we cannot subtract it from any equation in a small scale experiment. and even a larger scale experiment would still be acted upon by "G", and still affect the results.
The logically way a RE'er would escape this force would be to launch into space, where "G" is much much less prevalent. But this solution cannot exist in FE theory, thus, all small scale tests to disprove RE theory in a FE world are invalid.
Too bad gravity doesn't exsist. Search General Relativity.
-
Too bad gravity doesn't exsist. Search General Relativity.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Translation:
dfhdshfhfsdhkfhsksfh3r44ffqw3re3t435y645
-
Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
LOL, Tom. No, he isn't. But you sure as hell call all of Hawkings theories "mere fantasies."
-
Too bad gravity doesn't exsist. Search General Relativity.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Sticky thread: Universal Acceleration 101.
-
You cannot disprove the round earth "theory" by small scale tests. its impossible. pouring sand on a beach ball and watching the sand roll off does not equate to people on the earth.
Heres a main flaw with small scale tests such as that, and it is a flaw that exists with both RE and FE theories:
The acceleration 9.8 m/s2 is commonly referred to as "G" or "gravity". this force exists, there is no denying that. if you pick up a book and let go of it, the book does not float in the air. this force is greater than the "gravity" that may or may not exist between two masses that we can relate to. if you pour sand on a beach ball, the sand is being pulled more by "G" than the gravitational force that may or may not exist between the ball and the sand particles. thus, the particles will always slide off of the beach ball.
Since we cannot escape this "G" force, as it is everywhere, we cannot subtract it from any equation in a small scale experiment. and even a larger scale experiment would still be acted upon by "G", and still affect the results.
The logically way a RE'er would escape this force would be to launch into space, where "G" is much much less prevalent. But this solution cannot exist in FE theory, thus, all small scale tests to disprove RE theory in a FE world are invalid.
Read more.
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics. i cant really take you seriously
c) things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter. if not, my point is STILL valid.
the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics. i cant really take you seriously
c) things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter. if not, my point is STILL valid.
the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory
Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.
-
Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.
That + read the FAQ + not all of Newton's equations are wrong.
Like I said, READ MORE. Please.
-
Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.
That + read the FAQ + not all of Newton's equations are wrong.
Like I said, READ MORE. Please.
in any case, the experiment i described (sand+beach ball) which has been used to disprove RE theory to the layman is not a valid one
-
Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.
That + read the FAQ + not all of Newton's equations are wrong.
Like I said, READ MORE. Please.
in any case, the experiment i described (sand+beach ball) which has been used to disprove RE theory to the layman is not a valid one
Uh, I can't tell what you're saying but that's from Alaska.net, which is a parody of this site. People don't use it as a real argument for FE (except Tom Bishop, but for a different reason).
-
in any case, the experiment i described (sand+beach ball) which has been used to disprove RE theory to the layman is not a valid one
I believe that thread about the beach ball was made by narcberry (and from Alaska.net), who basically likes fucking around. It wasn't serious, and I'm pretty sure no one has explained (besides narc), any such experiment to disprove RE. Read more.
-
a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
The book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" is actually a PRO Round Earth book. Indeed, the author makes it clear in her work that she is a RE proponent, that the earth is a globe. The book is actually a historical account of people who believed the earth was flat, namely the members of the Flat Earth Society. Christine Garwood dismisses the idea of a Flat Earth as a "delusion" in commentary, but provides accurate historical research showing the past transgressions of the Flat Earth Society. Garwood admits that the Flat Earth Society has won every experimental challenge thrown at it, but dismisses the recorded results which shows objects appearing when they should be behind the curve of the earth as "chance optical illusions."
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics. i cant really take you seriously
Newton was shown to be wrong a century ago. Modern Physics holds Relativity to be accurate. Ergo, since you say that gravity exists as a force you are also saying that you are smarter than Einstein.
c) things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter. if not, my point is STILL valid.
There could be a number of mechanisms for object falling to the ground: upwards acceleration of the earth, dark energy, quantum mechanic's theory of gravitation, the Aristotelian theory of gravitation, Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Nordström's theory of gravitation, or Whitehead's theory of gravitation.
Each of these are just as likely as the increasingly discredited theory of "Gravity."
-
a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
The book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" is actually a PRO Round Earth book. Indeed, the author makes it clear that she is a RE proponent, that the earth is a globe. The book is actually a historical account of people who believed the earth was flat, namely the members of the Flat Earth Society. Christine Garwood dismisses the idea of a Flat Earth as a "delusion" in commentary, but provides historical research showing the past transgressions of the Flat Earth Society. Garwood admits that the Flat Earth Society has won every experimental challenge thrown at them, but dismisses results as "chance optical illusions."
Wow, so one more that actually bought the book (the only other one is Gulliver).
Newton was shown to be wrong a century ago. Modern Physics holds Relativity to be accurate. Ergo, since you say that gravity exists as a force you are also saying that you are smarter than Einstein.
Or he isn't educated in relativity. Ergo, you're wrong.
-
alright, ill admit defeat on that matter.
FE'ers are all still morons though. Especially Tom Bishop, since it appears that even other FE'ers dont like him.
-
alright, ill admit defeat on that matter.
FE'ers are all still morons though. Especially Tom Bishop, since it appears that even other FE'ers dont like him.
Good, you have learned that disproving FE is a lot harder than one first thought. Tom Bishop, while everyone else calls him an idiot, I don't believe he is one. He is either a very elaborate troll (at least more than Narc anyway) or for some strange reason believes in an FE. He seems smart enough to know otherwise. I wouldn't like to call anyone an idiot, but if any FE'er is an idiot, it's bullhorn, Raa, and 17 November.
-
alright, ill admit defeat on that matter.
FE'ers are all still morons though. Especially Tom Bishop, since it appears that even other FE'ers dont like him.
Good, you have learned that disproving FE is a lot harder than one first thought.
its the forum equivalent of Sisyphus' punishment in Tartarus
-
This thread is a crime against reason.
-
This thread is a crime against reason.
your existence is a crime against evolution
-
Ahaha.
-
This thread is a crime against reason.
your existence is a crime against evolution
Prepare for a mental ass whoopin.
-
Prepare for a mental ass whoopin.
More like, prepare for a thesaurus-infested spiel of insults.
(http://www.cslab.ntua.gr/~phib/images/doom/anim/spid0.gif)
-
LOL
-
if its coming from hannibal, i suppose i can expect some quote he edited to make the other guy look stupid, some "translation", or some nonsensical graphic
-
Prepare for a mental ass whoopin.
More like, prepare of a thesaurus-infested spiel of insults.
(http://www.cslab.ntua.gr/~phib/images/doom/anim/spid0.gif)
The endgame is always the same. :-*
if its coming from hannibal, i suppose i can expect some quote he edited to make the other guy look stupid, some "translation", or some nonsensical graphic
Of course this is based on your extensive experience in dealing with a superior being. This will entertain me.
Bring it, my child. :D
-
Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.
can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?
Christine Garwood's book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" provides historical data showing that the post-Rowbotham experiment mentioned in Wikipedia actually demonstrated a Flat Earth. Flat Earth proponent John Hampden won the wager when the referee William Carpenter declared that experimental results showed a Flat Earth.
There were a few objections to the referee's decision, however, which is why there is still some dispute today.
This is not true. Tom Bishop lies, again. I have the book. I've read the book. Christine provides no such historical data.
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
I checked the reference. You lied.
Einstein did not maintain that gravity as a force did not exist. You lied.
Einstein stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
-
a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
The book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" is actually a PRO Round Earth book. Indeed, the author makes it clear in her work that she is a RE proponent, that the earth is a globe. The book is actually a historical account of people who believed the earth was flat, namely the members of the Flat Earth Society. Christine Garwood dismisses the idea of a Flat Earth as a "delusion" in commentary, but provides accurate historical research showing the past transgressions of the Flat Earth Society. Garwood admits that the Flat Earth Society has won every experimental challenge thrown at it, but dismisses the recorded results which shows objects appearing when they should be behind the curve of the earth as "chance optical illusions."
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics. i cant really take you seriously
Newton was shown to be wrong a century ago. Modern Physics holds Relativity to be accurate. Ergo, since you say that gravity exists as a force you are also saying that you are smarter than Einstein.
c) things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter. if not, my point is STILL valid.
There could be a number of mechanisms for object falling to the ground: upwards acceleration of the earth, dark energy, quantum mechanic's theory of gravitation, the Aristotelian theory of gravitation, Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Nordström's theory of gravitation, or Whitehead's theory of gravitation.
Each of these are just as likely as the increasingly discredited theory of "Gravity."
TomB's latest lies are in bold font above.
Christine Garwood made no such statement.
Newton's theory was improved upon, not shown to be wrong.
These theories are discredited or unsupported as well as Newton's theory of gravity. Many of these theories reject the FE premise that the mass of the FE doesn't produce gravity.
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics. i cant really take you seriously
c) things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter. if not, my point is STILL valid.
the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory
Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.
No. I don't admit that UA 101 is valid. It's not. No, I don't admit that the UA explains the Earth's gravity. It doesn't.
Do pay attention!
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
I checked the reference. You lied.
Einstein did not maintain that gravity as a force did not exist. You lied.
Einstein stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Like Tom actually read "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood. He would rather just keep assuming it contains information that proves the earth is flat.
-
I still wanna read that book, when you gonna lend it to me Gully?
-
I still wanna read that book, when you gonna lend it to me Gully?
Right after you give me your real address. Funny thing how I can't mail a book to you with an address.
-
I'll give you my address if you give me yours
-
I'll give you my address if you give me yours
You're just fooling, right? I mean how did you expect to return the book without my address?
-
Funny that Garwood was an RE'er and nothing came of it, Yet Brahe was an FE'er and we now have some of the most fundamental laws of physics that are based upon his measurements, now granted the results were found by Kepler but that was what he was hired for. and both of them neede to change their Idea about the universe based upon what they found. So it does not really matter what you think when you start the numbers are what they are.
-
Funny that Garwood was an RE'er and nothing came of it, Yet Brahe was an FE'er and we now have some of the most fundamental laws of physics that are based upon his measurements, now granted the results were found by Kepler but that was what he was hired for. and both of them neede to change their Idea about the universe based upon what they found. So it does not really matter what you think when you start the numbers are what they are.
Irony.
-
I'll give you my address if you give me yours
You're just fooling, right? I mean how did you expect to return the book without my address?
I was going for a whole 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' kinda thing....
But if you seriously will lend me the book I'll PM you my address (not so worried about the internet stalking as I'm only living here for a year.....not that you're a stalker, it's just common sense, that's all)
-
I'll give you my address if you give me yours
You're just fooling, right? I mean how did you expect to return the book without my address?
I was going for a whole 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' kinda thing....
But if you seriously will lend me the book I'll PM you my address (not so worried about the internet stalking as I'm only living here for a year.....not that you're a stalker, it's just common sense, that's all)
Seriously, PM me your address. I will post the book to you within a day or two.
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics. i cant really take you seriously
c) things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter. if not, my point is STILL valid.
the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory
Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.
No. I don't admit that UA 101 is valid. It's not. No, I don't admit that the UA explains the Earth's gravity. It doesn't.
Do pay attention!
I have yet to see you post a contradiction. You just say it's a trick. I could've sworn I've seen you say it works.
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics. i cant really take you seriously
c) things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter. if not, my point is STILL valid.
the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory
Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.
No. I don't admit that UA 101 is valid. It's not. No, I don't admit that the UA explains the Earth's gravity. It doesn't.
Do pay attention!
I have yet to see you post a contradiction. You just say it's a trick. I could've sworn I've seen you say it works.
You seem confused. I've posted many times explaining that gross failures of the UA, including the variation of 'g' by latitude and altitude and the Cavendish experiment. The only trick that I recall mentioning regularly is the trick FE uses to get the "felt" gravity. I do encourage FE challenger not to attack the UA's mimicking of the primary effects of gravity.
Perhaps you should write down some notes to refer to in the future.
-
Gulliver was caught, because more than one of us saw that post in question. You lose, Gulliver.
-
but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.
You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.
WOW.
my point remains valid. theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.
yeah, just checked. things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics. i cant really take you seriously
c) things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter. if not, my point is STILL valid.
the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory
Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.
No. I don't admit that UA 101 is valid. It's not. No, I don't admit that the UA explains the Earth's gravity. It doesn't.
Do pay attention!
I have yet to see you post a contradiction. You just say it's a trick. I could've sworn I've seen you say it works.
You seem confused. I've posted many times explaining that gross failures of the UA, including the variation of 'g' by latitude and altitude and the Cavendish experiment. The only trick that I recall mentioning regularly is the trick FE uses to get the "felt" gravity. I do encourage FE challenger not to attack the UA's mimicking of the primary effects of gravity.
Perhaps you should write down some notes to refer to in the future.
The basic concept works.
-
I'll give you my address if you give me yours
You're just fooling, right? I mean how did you expect to return the book without my address?
I was going for a whole 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' kinda thing....
But if you seriously will lend me the book I'll PM you my address (not so worried about the internet stalking as I'm only living here for a year.....not that you're a stalker, it's just common sense, that's all)
Seriously, PM me your address. I will post the book to you within a day or two.
Alright then, will do. Don't parcel bomb me....or anthrax me
-
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.
-
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.
Don't blame TomB on that error. He's following the bad explanations from TheEngineer.
-
With the claims Tom is making he'd better have every i dotted.
-
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.
Don't blame TomB on that error. He's following the bad explanations from TheEngineer.
You've said the same thing. That gravity isn't a force but the bending of space time
-
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.
Don't blame TomB on that error. He's following the bad explanations from TheEngineer.
You've said the same thing. That gravity isn't a force but the bending of space time
Really where did I say that Bushy? Was it the same imaginary post where I had Newton's Second Law of Motion wrong?
-
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.
Don't blame TomB on that error. He's following the bad explanations from TheEngineer.
You've said the same thing. That gravity isn't a force but the bending of space time
Really where did I say that Bushy? Was it the same imaginary post where I had Newton's Second Law of Motion wrong?
I'm sorry, I thought you believed in General Relativity, in which gravity isn't a force.
Had thought you said gravitons don't exist.
To be honest, I can't be fucked to search through your posts so I'll believe you and say sorry.
-
Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?
Einstein never maintianed this. He spent the last 30 years of his life trying to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. He understood it was a force.
Don't blame TomB on that error. He's following the bad explanations from TheEngineer.
You've said the same thing. That gravity isn't a force but the bending of space time
Really where did I say that Bushy? Was it the same imaginary post where I had Newton's Second Law of Motion wrong?
I'm sorry, I thought you believed in General Relativity, in which gravity isn't a force.
Had thought you said gravitons don't exist.
To be honest, I can't be fucked to search through your posts so I'll believe you and say sorry.
Apology accepted.
-
GR does not say that gravity isn't a force. Just because you have a fundamental udnerstanding of what causes a force doesn't mean it's not a force anymore.
-
GR does not say that gravity isn't a force.
Yes, GR does.
Just because you have a fundamental udnerstanding of what causes a force doesn't mean it's not a force anymore.
I don't think I said it did
-
GR does not say that gravity isn't a force. Just because you have a fundamental udnerstanding of what causes a force doesn't mean it's not a force anymore.
Well said. I'm glad you've joined us. Welcome.
-
"Yes, GR does."
No it doesn't GR provides an explanation for the fore of gravity. It gives a geometrical explanation based on minimizing the action. That doesn't mean gravity is not perceived as a force. F=ma for gravity as for any other force.
"I don't think I said it did"
But that's why you think that.
And thanks Gulliver.